You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

We have not inspected this service yet

Inspection summaries and ratings at previous address

Overall summary & rating


Updated 16 August 2017

The Princess Alexandra Home is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 45 older people of the Jewish faith, some of whom have dementia. At the time of this inspection there were 45 people living in the home.

The home is currently going through a major redevelopment. The original building was divided into two units; Newland House and Edmond House. This is being re-developed to make way for a new home. The registered manager explained that the entire home will not be demolished until the new home is built. Currently a small section of the home has been demolished, including Newland House. People from Newland House have since been supported to move to Edmond house, which accommodates up to 45 people.

This inspection was prompted in part by notification of an incident following which a person using the service died. This incident is subject to a police investigation and as a result this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident. However, the information shared with CQC about the incident indicated potential concerns about the management of risks related to that incident. This inspection examined those risks.

We saw that risks were appropriately managed. Risks to people’s health and well-being had been identified. These were reviewed regularly to ensure appropriate action was taken to mitigate the risk.

Where accidents and incidents had occurred these had been appropriately documented and investigated. Relevant action plans had been met. This process ensured risks to people were reduced.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had a clear understanding of the safeguarding process. Comprehensive vetting checks were carried out on new staff to make sure they were suitable to work with people who needed care and support.

People’s medicines were handled safely. There were suitable arrangements for the recording, storage, administration and disposal of medicines in the home.

Staff supervisions, appraisals and staff meetings all happened regularly. Staff spoke highly of the management. They were confident they could raise any issues, knowing they would be listened to and acted upon.

People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. We saw that the home followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the care they needed.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were supported with care and compassion. Staff understood the need to protect people's privacy and dignity. People told us staff knocked on their doors before they could enter their rooms.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. We found the home to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of fluids and encouraged to maintain a balanced diet. We saw that menus were very varied and a choice was offered at each mealtime. Staff supported people who required help to eat and drink and special diets were well catered for.

People were supported to lead a full and active lifestyle. Activities were personalised. People were supported to develop their skills and pursue their hobbies and interests.

People received care that reflected their likes, dislikes and preferences. The care plans made reference to people's wishes and how they wanted their care needs to be met. This was supported by relevant documentation and tools.

Complaints were investigated and lessons learnt from them. These were assessed to see if any changes were needed to minimise the risk of similar concerns being raised and to improve the qual

Inspection areas



Updated 16 August 2017

The service was safe.

People were kept safe because the provider had systems in place to recognise and respond to incidents. Following a recent incident, the service had responded to ensure people were safe from harm.

There were robust systems in place to ensure people�s risks in relation to the environment were minimised.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had a clear understanding of the safeguarding process.

There were appropriate recruitment and selection processes in place to make sure only suitable staff were employed to care for people.



Updated 16 August 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received induction, training and supervision to support them in their roles.

People had access to a range of healthcare services to make sure they received effective healthcare.

People�s choices were respected and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act.

People were supported to maintain balanced diets based on their preferences. They were provided with a suitable range of nutritious food and drink.



Updated 16 August 2017

The service was caring.

People's privacy and dignity was respected by staff.

People and their relatives told us staff supported them with care and compassion.

People receiving end of life care were treated with love and compassion, as were their relatives.



Updated 16 August 2017

The service was responsive.

People were involved in planning their care and support. Their care plans recorded information about their individual care needs and preferences.

People were supported with their interests and activities.

There were systems and processes in place to receive and respond to complaints or concerns about the service.



Updated 16 August 2017

The service was well-led.

People were included in decisions about the running of the service and were encouraged and supported to have their voice heard.

The home sought the views of people and their relatives through surveys.

This provided people with an opportunity to provide feedback about the service.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. The quality assurance system helped to develop and drive improvement.